This case was a dispute between John Fisher, the plaintiff in error, and William Cockerell, the defendant in error. The issue at hand was whether or not Cockerell had breached his contract with Fisher by failing to pay rent for a property he leased from him. In order to determine this question of fact, the Supreme Court examined evidence presented by both parties as well as testimony given during trial proceedings. Ultimately it concluded that Cockerell had indeed failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and ordered him to make payment of all past due rents plus interest accrued since their original agreement. This ruling established an important precedent regarding breach of contract cases which still stands today; namely that when one party fails to fulfill its contractual duties then they are liable for any damages incurred as a result thereof.

In the case of Lessor of John Fisher, Plaintiff in Error vs. William Cockerell, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to reverse and remand the lower court's ruling. He believed that there was no error committed by the lower court and thus did not believe it necessary to reverse or remand their decision. The dispute arose from an agreement between two parties regarding land leases; however, due to some ambiguity within this agreement as well as certain facts being omitted from its language, both sides had different interpretations of what exactly was agreed upon. Chief Justice Marshall found that because these issues were not raised before trial nor addressed during proceedings at either level of court - they should be considered waived by both parties involved and could not be used for appeal purposes after judgment had been rendered. As such he concluded that since neither party objected on those grounds prior to judgment being made then any errors which may have occurred would remain unresolved and therefore affirmed his support for upholding the original verdict issued by the lower courts without reversing or remanding it back down again for further review.